so now you are richest man in the world

[3Boys]

Irrelevant:

Hi 3Boys


You are indeed right to suspect Yawningbread's analysis. He started with a conclusion (maybe he is still sulking over the apology he had to make) and tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to justify it. He might be able to string a few words together but an economist or a student of economics he is not.

In case you are interested, please refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

On a PPP basis, every country is compared against USA for a basket of goods/services. In Singapore's case, our cost of living is lower than that of USA. Therefore, there is a net positive adjustment and our GDP on a PPP basis would appear higher.

That is the simple explanation for the discrepancy that YB is experiencing. No government fudging is involved.

And his theory of PR or non residents helping to boost our GDP because they are not counted as part of the denominator is simply ridiculous.

Thank you! :salute:

I am honestly quite tired of doing all the number crunching to 'disprove' so called analyses put forth by people with an axe to grind, more so since I am not in any way schooled in economics.

But it is quite shocking how gullible and selective people can be when faced with such things. I suppose if someone finds an article that fits ones view, the tendency is to swallow whole.

So much for the internet as a market place of ideas. Check, check and check again.

[limlim]

3Boys:

But it is quite shocking how gullible and selective people can be when faced with such things. I suppose if someone finds an article that fits ones view, the tendency is to swallow whole.

So much for the internet as a market place of ideas. Check, check and check again.

That's why need pple like you around mah..

You cannot expect everyone to be proficient in those economic stuff right?

For those who are not trained, it is very easy for a well crafted article to have big influence..

Not bcoz it fits one view.. but bcoz they are not trained to be able to detect any \"questionable\" stuff..

It is good to have alternative views to point out the things that an untrained person cannot easily pick up.. then the reader can make their own judgement.

[Sun_2010]

limlim:

3Boys:

But it is quite shocking how gullible and selective people can be when faced with such things. I suppose if someone finds an article that fits ones view, the tendency is to swallow whole.

So much for the internet as a market place of ideas. Check, check and check again.

That's why need pple like you around mah..

You cannot expect everyone to be proficient in those economic stuff right?
For those who are not trained, it is very easy for a well crafted article to have big influence..

Not bcoz it fits one view.. but bcoz they are not trained to be able to detect any \"questionable\" stuff..

It is good to have alternative views to point out the things that an untrained person cannot easily pick up.. then the reader can make their own judgement.

Thats quite true.
But how come we expect anyone's analysis as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth .

The only criteria is it seems is not from any govt agency or related site.

[WeiHan]

I guess even high Gini coefficient may not even be a problem.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

I quote from the article which cite credible academics

==
Another limitation of Gini coefficient is that it is not a proper measure of egalitarianism, as it is only measures income dispersion. For example, if two equally egalitarian countries pursue different immigration policies, the country accepting a higher proportion of low-income or impoverished migrants will report a higher Gini coefficient and therefore may appear to exhibit more income inequality.

Gini coefficient falls yet the poor gets poorer, Gini coefficient rises yet everyone getting richer.
==

[Irrelevant]

Since I'm rather free this afternoon, I would like to add 2 more cts on this silly report by Citibank and Knight Frank.


GDP is a measure of the value of goods and services produced in the country. Therefore, a high per capita GDP merely illustrates that the people in a country is rather productive, nothing more. It is NOT an indication of wealth, only of POTENTIAL income.

What about wages then? Surely with a high per capita GDP, we should be paying higher wages?

http://business.asiaone.com/Business/News/Office/Story/A1Story20100517-216611.html

Based on this report, the wage share of GDP in Singapore has been bouncing around 40% plus or so whereas in the USA, it is closer to 60%. If these percentages did not change recently, it would mean that to achieve similar level of wages as in the USA, our per capita GDP must by 40-50% higher!

And then, of course, there is the Gini coefficient....

[3Boys]

Irrelevant:

Since I'm rather free this afternoon, I would like to add 2 more cts on this silly report by Citibank and Knight Frank.


GDP is a measure of the value of goods and services produced in the country. Therefore, a high per capita GDP merely illustrates that the people in a country is rather productive, nothing more. It is NOT an indication of wealth, only of POTENTIAL income.

What about wages then? Surely with a high per capita GDP, we should be paying higher wages?

http://business.asiaone.com/Business/News/Office/Story/A1Story20100517-216611.html

Based on this report, the wage share of GDP in Singapore has been bouncing around 40% plus or so whereas in the USA, it is closer to 60%. If these percentages did not change recently, it would mean that to achieve similar level of wages as in the USA, our per capita GDP must by 40-50% higher!

And then, of course, there is the Gini coefficient....

:goodpost:

Where have you been hiding all this while Mr Irrelevant?

I completely agree income distribution is a problem in Singapore.

[3Boys]

WeiHan:

I guess even high Gini coefficient may not even be a problem.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

I quote from the article which cite credible academics

==
Another limitation of Gini coefficient is that it is not a proper measure of egalitarianism, as it is only measures income dispersion. For example, if two equally egalitarian countries pursue different immigration policies, the country accepting a higher proportion of low-income or impoverished migrants will report a higher Gini coefficient and therefore may appear to exhibit more income inequality.

Gini coefficient falls yet the poor gets poorer, Gini coefficient rises yet everyone getting richer.
==

No, I have said before that income distribution IS A problem in Singapore. The lower paid workers need a leg up, be it via taxes and grants, I don't know, but something needs to be done.

[WeiHan]

3Boys:

WeiHan:

I guess even high Gini coefficient may not even be a problem.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

I quote from the article which cite credible academics

==
Another limitation of Gini coefficient is that it is not a proper measure of egalitarianism, as it is only measures income dispersion. For example, if two equally egalitarian countries pursue different immigration policies, the country accepting a higher proportion of low-income or impoverished migrants will report a higher Gini coefficient and therefore may appear to exhibit more income inequality.

Gini coefficient falls yet the poor gets poorer, Gini coefficient rises yet everyone getting richer.
==

No, I have said before that income distribution IS A problem in Singapore. The lower paid workers need a leg up, be it via taxes and grants, I don't know, but something needs to be done.

How do you account for the fact that income for average singaporeans have been stagnant but yet GDP/capita has increased?

Is either
1. The non-residential workers have been taken out of the denominator when calculating GDP/capita. ( I still don't see why this argument is ridiculous)
2. The richest 10% really account for all the GDP increases
3. Others?

[3Boys]

WeiHan:

3Boys:

[quote=\"WeiHan\"]I guess even high Gini coefficient may not even be a problem.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

I quote from the article which cite credible academics

==
Another limitation of Gini coefficient is that it is not a proper measure of egalitarianism, as it is only measures income dispersion. For example, if two equally egalitarian countries pursue different immigration policies, the country accepting a higher proportion of low-income or impoverished migrants will report a higher Gini coefficient and therefore may appear to exhibit more income inequality.

Gini coefficient falls yet the poor gets poorer, Gini coefficient rises yet everyone getting richer.
==

No, I have said before that income distribution IS A problem in Singapore. The lower paid workers need a leg up, be it via taxes and grants, I don't know, but something needs to be done.

How do you account for the fact that income for average singaporeans have been stagnant but yet GDP/capita has increased?

Is either
1. The non-residential workers have been taken out of the denominator when calculating GDP/capita. ( I still don't see why this argument is ridiculous)
2. The richest 10% really account for all the GDP increases
3. Others?[/quote]We have a very high concentration of wealthy, and a small number of the extremely wealthy. It is a 2-track economy right now, which partly accounts for the high GINI.

Although it is hard to independently verify the data, yb's approach has got no more merit than the one he is trying to debunk. And it's not as if it comes to a wholly different conclusion either (that Singapore is one of the top ranked countries by GDP). He started with a conclusion that KF was wrong, that ST was 'gloating', then tried to morph the data by taking 2 extremes, and voila, we are ahead of Australia, but not Norway. Really making a mountain out of a molehill, just to take a shot at ST.


If he want to argue GINI, then argue GINI lah, bao jiak there, even g'ment say so.

[WeiHan]

The stagnation of median income isn't an uniquely-Singapore issue.


America's middle class is shrinking in size too

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-08-22/middle-class-share-of-americas-income-shrinking